1600x1200 is both a 5:6 integer resize and also preserves the aspect ratio, so that's correct for 320x200 sources. But why does one of your videos have 1182 and not 1200?
MobyGamer wrote on 2020-12-20, 17:18:1600x1200 is both a 5:6 integer resize and also preserves the aspect ratio, so that's correct for 320x200 sources. But why does one of your videos have 1182 and not 1200?
Great question, I should have explained that. Stunt Island's "theater mode" has 3 lines of black pixels at the top. I could have just left it in there, but wanted to trim it out so just the movie content is visible. So I resized to 1600x1200 and then trimmed the vertical to the equivalent of 320x197 (1600x1182).
If you want the best quality, why 1080p? The best way to increase video quality on Youtube is to increase resolution.
I'm actually curious what's the best way to archive source footage for retro content is. I'm guessing ZMBV is optimal for DOSBox and other low color & resolution sources, but it's probably not that good at handling noise (if for example, you're trying to capture from an analog source)?
ZellSF wrote on 2020-12-22, 20:02:I'm actually curious what's the best way to archive source footage for retro content is. I'm guessing ZMBV is optimal for DOSBox and other low color & resolution sources, but it's probably not that good at handling noise (if for example, you're trying to capture from an analog source)?
If you've got too much noise you can always use various denoise filters (ffmpeg's fftdnoiz, etc). If your source has a known fixed palette, there are even easier and cleaner ways to do that.
Either way, a less idiosyncratic format is probably better for archival. I'm a fan of ffmpeg's results with -c:v libx264rgb -crf 0. It's lossless 24-bit RGB which encodes/decodes very quickly, and can handle noise, but for noiseless low-color videos it's about as small as ZMBV.
I've been told that not all video editors like it, but it can always be transcoded so for archival purposes it's fine.
ZellSF wrote on 2020-12-22, 19:55:If you want the best quality, why 1080p? The best way to increase video quality on Youtube is to increase resolution.
1080p looks close enough to the original for me. I suppose I could go up to the next resolution without resampling (3200x2400, I think). It might be worth a try, I just feel like 1080p60 is getting good enough bitrates to accurately represent the 320x200x256 original.
dha5448 wrote on 2020-12-22, 22:57:ZellSF wrote on 2020-12-22, 19:55:If you want the best quality, why 1080p? The best way to increase video quality on Youtube is to increase resolution.
1080p looks close enough to the original for me. I suppose I could go up to the next resolution without resampling (3200x2400, I think). It might be worth a try, I just feel like 1080p60 is getting good enough bitrates to accurately represent the 320x200x256 original.
Sticking to integer scales is pointless as Youtube will resize the video to 1080p/1440p/2160p/4320p anyway.
If you want integer scaling to have any meaning you need to letterbox a 1200p signal into 1440p as described in OP.
